Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: What does the word "means" mean to you?

  1. #21
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Thanks Vadim.

    For me, Hegel is simply another Aristotelian, no matter how 'refined'. He has been called the most difficult of all philosophers to understand. But he still is a repeat of the logic of Aristotle in essence.

    I would be interested in your agreement with Cornelius Van Til on "the essence of God is absolutely unkowable", also, where you would agree and disagree with Karl Barth's theology of the absolute freedom of God.

    I will evaluate and explain more fully as time permits, right now I'm 'pumped up' trying to finish my paper on the historical doctrine of Satan and its implications today.

    What might be helpful is a comparative explanation of how you perceive my teaching versus your own on the incomprehensibility of God and the absolute freedom of God. We probably have many areas of agreement.

    Yours in the true gospel of Christ, --Bob

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-23-19)

  3. #22
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Vadim. I am having a hard time understanding. I believe God is absolutely free. However if He is free to stop being God is He then God? If He cannot stop being God then there is a restriction in a sense. His restriction is He must BE God and be absolutely free in the sense that He does not stop being God. Would you state that God can stop being God?

  4. #23
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Somehow this thread became closed... Not sure how that happened! I apologize to everyone for this.. Re-opening thread...

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:


  6. #24
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Thanks Brandan. Since I thought the thread was closed I did not respond to Simplici, but have definite thoughts to express. I honestly thought you closed it because we have strayed so far from the original topic and wanted new threads opened on the issues currently under discussion--both on the nature of God's absolute freedom as a covenant-keeping God and also on the nature, value, and limitations of philosophy in contrast to revealed truth (not a bad idea). --Bob
    Last edited by Bob Higby; 01-27-19 at 10:56 PM.

  7. #25
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    If you would like to start a new thread to discuss immutability, feel free! As I find time I hope to respond.

  8. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Just one note of clarification before i start new threads: I have always opposed any notion of a 'law of contradiction' that God created, this was my disagreement with our old contributor Disciple. I do not believe any quotation of mine can be found that supports the existence of such a law ordained by God--I have opposed this consistently, vigorously, and passionately. Bro Bob

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-29-19)

  10. #27
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Vadim,

    Don't misinterpret what I am saying here. You are getting overly semantic and there are definite semantic barriers here. It is wrong for you to accuse other believers of idolatry based on semantic differences. I am talking about differences based on the perceived meaning of words in English, or for that matter, words in any language. When a word is used by a teacher, it is of utmost importance that anyone challenging the use of that word has an affirmation from the 'horses mouth' (as we call it in English) that the position taken by the challenged teacher is accurately stated.

    I would agree with you that I may have chosen a poor word if I stated that God is 'limited' in His freedom. Of course He is not. I agree with you that His freedom is absolute. In addition to confessing that, we need to clearly define what the Bible states the pleasure of God is in His freedom, immutability, potency, goodness, infinity, and transcendence. On the matter of the salvation of mankind He has revealed this to us in His personal appearance in the incarnation of Christ and in His written Word.

    We know that God states He will accomplish all of His pleasure in His predestinarian counsels (Isa. 46:10 in context). This needs to be understood in the context of the everlasting covenant of Grace. When God cuts a covenant of promise as He did with Abraham in Genesis 15, He is stating that He is bound by His own covenant and will not break it in harmony with His immutable nature. The very fact that God is 'bound' in this sense would be viewed by some as denying His absolute freedom. But fulfilling this covenant is His pleasure and is in harmony with His own immutable nature, so the fact that God would bind Himself to a covenant it is an expression of God's absolute freedom. There is no contradiction here between God's freedom and God's constraining Himself to an everlasting covenant that will surely come to pass no matter what.

    Religious determinists like Mohammed teach that God in His freedom can and does change His mind continuously. Any promise that God has made He might choose to revoke and do the opposite at any time. To me the covenant is the apex of understanding the difference between a pure philosophic or religious determinism and the God of all Grace revealed in Christ and His scriptural revelation. So when I say that God cannot deny Himself in His covenant promises, I'm stating that He chooses to be bound by any covenant promises that He makes--otherwise we don't have full assurance of faith in our ultimate salvation in Christ.

    Bob

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-30-19), Pam (01-30-19)

  12. #28
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    I suppose it’s a matter of will not instead of can not. God CAN do anything. HE IS ABSOLUTELY FREEE. There are no constraints. But we know HE WILL NOT do certain things. This is a matter of semantics. Here in the west when we say we can’t do something it often means we WON’T do something. I cannot beat my wife. We all knew I could if I wanted to, but I just can’t. I simply won’t!
    This is my signature.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Greg (01-30-19), Pam (01-30-19)

  14. #29
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    OK, well I don't have any problems reconciling your position with Bob's. I'm convinced it's semantics. Grace and Peace!
    This is my signature.

  15. #30
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    a) He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!


    I read this to say, He acts according to His will, He will not do otherwise!


    b) Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature.


    I read this to say, God only thinks according to what He decides to do. When talking about "restraint" from God, it's merely according to His will. We all know God CAN do anything He wants, and He is not restrained. However, we also know that He WON'T do what He has not purposed to do. You could call this a constraint, but in reality, it's just God doing what He purposed to do. Either way, it means the same thing to me.


    с) So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will


    I read this to say, God is absolutely immutable because that is what He has purposed to be. If you want to call His purpose a constraint OR limit, it's ok, means the same thing to me. Bottom line God does and is what He says. I know He is immutable and will remain immutable not because of any constraint upon Him, but because God says He does not change. It's who He has purposed to be. He WILL NOT change. HE IS immutable. If someone wants to say He is constrained by His immutability, it doesn't bother me. All it means is He will be what He says He will be. God is still absolutely free and not constrained in reality. The use of constraining words like can't are human expressions to describe what God says He has purposed. It is not an oxymoron - just a figure of speech - a human way of speaking.
    This is my signature.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-30-19)

  17. #31
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Hi Vadim,

    I understand your frustration, but that's how we talk over here in America. The phrase "I just can't - I just can't" is one that I and others use often. But the real meaning is "I won't" depending on the context of the discussion. I don't know if this is common in Russian, but it is here.

    The phrases, "God can't stop being God" and "God won't stop being God" mean the same thing to me. God can't stop being God because He WILLS NOT to stop being God. Therefore the "constraint" is just a way of talking - it's an expression of "WILL NOT".

    Gen 6:6, (KJV), And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    Ask yourself, did the writer of Genesis blaspheme the Lord when He wrote this? Or did he try to explain in human terms the abhorrence of sin that God has? Take those words at face value, and you can build a doctrine of open theism - which many have! Is it postmodernism to say that those words don't actually mean that God changed?

    You may think that this is "very sad", and you're right. But I've known my brother Bob a long time, and I know not to criticize him when I first see something that doesn't sit right with me. I take time to try and understand where he is coming from. All of us believe that God does as He pleases. That He does everything that He desires. That He is absolutely free. That should be enough for all of us. And as a fallen people, we are often inconsistent with our speech and sin every day. Of course, that doesn't mean we should not try to clarify what it is we actually mean, and try to overcome the limitations of our languages.

    You wrote: "I don't consider Robert an idolater. I believe his theology does not adequately Express his faith." Brother, I'm right there with him. I know my theology does not adequately express my faith. I hope to learn more and more and to grow in the goodness of His grace.

    Gospel Blessings,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-30-19)

  19. #32
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici View Post
    Brandаn! I understand.
    Based on what you wrote, I don't think that you do. I don't think you understand the nuances of our language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici
    Last question: are you satisfied with the level of honesty of the discussion? You don't have to answer that question to me personally. Answer this question to yourself.
    Yes, I am satisfied. I wouldn't have posted it publicly if I didn't think it personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici
    I think the continuation of the discussion is absolutely meaningless.
    I am not finding any fruitfulness in it at this time. But who knows? Anyway, Gospel blessings to you Vadim. - B.
    This is my signature.

  20. #33
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    One more final note, here in Missouri, where I grew up, we would use English very improperly. For example, I'd ask my mom, "Can we go to the park today?" I wasn't asking in a FORMAL sense. I was asking in the informal sense. "Can we go" really meant, "may we go?" English teachers here are constantly correcting their students over this! One must be willing to try and understand what the speaker is trying to convey. As brothers, we should be willing to give the benefit of doubt to each other.
    This is my signature.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-31-19)

  22. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    27
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandan View Post
    One more final note, here in Missouri, where I grew up, we would use English very improperly. For example, I'd ask my mom, "Can we go to the park today?" I wasn't asking in a FORMAL sense. I was asking in the informal sense. "Can we go" really meant, "may we go?" English teachers here are constantly correcting their students over this! One must be willing to try and understand what the speaker is trying to convey. As brothers, we should be willing to give the benefit of doubt to each other.
    I had to learn three languages.

    West Virginia English,Texas English and Louisiana English.

    The struggle is real.

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Razor For This Useful Post:

    Bob Higby (02-01-19), Brandan (01-30-19), Pam (01-31-19)

  24. #35
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    ALL:

    Thanks for all of your posts and thoughts on this issue, I have been involved in much personal work and responsibilities lately and haven't had opportunity to log in and respond myself.

    I especially thank Brandan for his honest clarifications in dealing with the issue.

    Often some matters become clear by asking questions having to do with contrasting what is affirmed by its opposite. That is what I will do here with Vadim.

    He (God) acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!

    So,if you disagree with this, it is imperative to me that an example be given where God might act contrary to His essential nature. You have said earlier that the essence of God is something unknowable to us and that might be the answer you would retreat to, I just don't know. For me there is no contradiction between God's nature, attributes, and what He has promised He will do with an oath.

    Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature. This is my statement. I want an example of where God is free to think and act contrary to His essential nature and that would clear up the opposition for me.

    So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will.
    I may have gone too far on this one and I admit it was a poor choice of words. God does have absolute free will. So the constraint or limit is on what He has promised to do in His revelation. He will not will to choose contrary to His covenant and purposes, that is what we can be confident of. We know He won't decide tomorrow to go back on His covenant and send every member of humanity to damnation for their sinful rebellion. That fact is the reason I chose the 'limit on free-will' language but I have modified that here.

    In these examples, the limited nature of God acts as a cause. Limited freedom of the will of God plays the role of the investigation. There is a causal link. The limitations of God's nature produce the limitations of God's will. This refutes the view that here the question is only in semantics. I do not believe the nature of God itself is limited in any sense, He does ALL according to His purposes and pleasure. So yes, it is not an issue of semantics in this particular case. It is an issue of misunderstanding between us though.

    The question of the actual submission of God to the logical law of contradiction Has not been resolved. (my message is 42). All statements that this is not so are refuted by the practice of reasoning which in fact subordinate God to the law of contradiction. . Vadim, you have lost me here. I have never taught that God is subject to a law of contradiction, I don't believe He created such a law and I don't believe it exists. That law is the creation of man to avoid facing the truth on all eternally relevant matters. I will defend that my statements when finally analyzed are not contradictory.

    In any case Vadim, I immensely appreciate your honesty and passion to defend truth.

    Bro. Bob

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (02-01-19), Pam (02-01-19)

  26. #36
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,833
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Thank you Bob. While I disagree with Vadim’s position that this is more than semantics (at least as it pertains to us) I do agree we probably shouldn’t use constraining words to describe God. From now on I will try not use the words, “God can’t.” It will be, “God won’t.” I do greatly appreciate the zeal Vadim has for the truth.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:


  28. #37
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Vadim, I’m going to have to summarize my thoughts and try and bring this together somehow.

    Firstly, I do not view the essence of God as only what he is in His transcendence. When in his immanence He has communicated certain truths in revelation, I believe these truths are commanded for man to believe and that they express the particular portion of His essence, nature, and character that the particular truth communicated reveals.
    I do not believe ‘mystery’ applies to what God has revealed once a regenerate believer learns the truth of revelation on any particular issue of the gospel. These things are only a mystery to unsaved humanity, as Christ taught in His parables regarding the kingdom.

    I’m sorry, I thought both ‘contradiction’ and ‘non-contradiction’ were included in the ‘law of contradiction’, in the sense contradiction and non-contradiction are both defined in logical propositions. I guess I accept your point that God created such a law, however, many teach that God speaks in true paradoxes that we cannot resolve (and I abhor that). Even for unregenerate people, reason and logic following all the ‘rules’ of non-contradiction can be used to teach anything persuasively (as any humanist knows). So the 'law of contradiction' is inadequate for the unbeliever. Only once we know the truth of the gospel does the error of speaking dialectically regarding revealed truth become apparent (in my view). Having said that, logic and reason are still subordinate to God's sovereign revealed will but I don't believe anything in His revealed will will be contradictory or truly paradoxical (other than what might 'appear' to be such when isolating a misuse of textual verbage from the whole of scripture).

    Anyway, I have agreed with you that God has absolute freedom, there are reasons I don’t like to term this ‘free will’ but don’t want to debate that now. I also agree that we cannot know the essence of God in his infinity or transcendence beyond what is revealed. For what is revealed, our knowledge of God’s essential nature, character, and covenant purposes on those things begin in regeneration and mature over time.

    Bro. Bob
    Last edited by Bob Higby; 02-04-19 at 12:38 AM.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:


  30. #38
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    I almost forgot. I do need to state the points I will not concede and cannot perceive myself as conceding.

    1. I will not affirm that God cannot do certain things, for the NT clearly says such there are such things (2 Tim. 2:13, Titus 1:2). So I still stop short of confessing that He has no constraints on His freedom as God (though I confess that He has absolute freedom and believe I'm not contradicting the other point I've made).

    2. I will not answer the question 'can God make a square circle' because I think anyone will answer that either way according to their bias and it resolves nothing.

    3. The key question of Christ's immutability as God as it relates to His incarnation, did He have the free will to choose to sin (again, considering 2 Tim. 2:13 above) or should we state that He was unable to sin. I don't expect an immediate and simple answer to this, I have debated it on other websites extensively without resolution.

    Bro. Bob

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (02-06-19)

  32. #39
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Brethren,

    I am going to respond to a few of Vadim’s points (cited in bold and italics below) but this will be my last post in this thread. I get the impression that attempting to resolve the significant differences in rhetoric here is starting to generate more heat than light & I need to get back to the central gospel passion of my very existence, which has nothing to do with speculative philosophy regardless of what has been alleged of me.

    Jesus asserts,"all things [are] possible unto the." Paul States: "he cannot..."There is a contradiction: The One to whom everything is possible, something can not.
    There are two ways to treat this contradiction


    I cannot follow the ‘two ways’ logic you have outlined following this statement, simply because I do not accept the premise (assertion) that there is a contradiction. What you are citing is a contrast of rhetoric in scripture, I (and many other expositors) to not accept this as a paradox or contradiction. I will admit that ‘restraint’ is potentially the wrong word to use when describing a contrast with ‘freedom’ when it comes to God, simply because the very concept of God’s freedom means so many different things to different people. But for most simple people, ‘absolute freedom’ in God means also Platonic ‘free will’ ascribed to him, which results in the conclusions such as: God might finally get so sick of our foolishness on planet Earth that He will just blow it all up and start over. The same reasoning is used of opponents of the Gospel with regard to denial of the second coming (God will no longer keep this promise because He got tired of man’s wickedness) or forms of Deism (God created everything but in His free-will abandoned all of His creation long ago to itself and the basic laws He invested the creation with). Also, I constantly here ‘what if God had done differently’ in preaching and discussion, which is reasoning that the Bible does not use.

    For me, what we can know in our limited state regarding God’s freedom is revealed in scripture: no one is His counselor, He is not accountable to any outside entity (law or person) for what He purposes and does, He does strictly as He pleases in all of His predestined plan. Then we have His plan of salvation and all associated doctrine clearly stated. The two passages I mentioned from Paul refer to the certainty of God keeping His covenant of redemption and Paul felt comfortably using ‘cannot’ instead of only ‘will not’ in describing this. When God cut the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15 and passed through the pieces of the animal, He was committed to non-failure in keeping His promises to the extent that ‘cannot fail’ is appropriate language to describe this covenant promise.

    But this is not a philosophical theology of ‘God cannot’ which some of what I have stated has been interpreted as being. For me, stating that God is unable to break His covenant (which the very of nature of a covenant for God implies) is not a broad and ontological philosophy of God’s transcendent being, so I do not see a contradiction or paradox between God’s absolute freedom and the rhetorical statement that He cannot do certain things.

    The Guarantee of salvation lies in the love of God which was revealed to the chosen in Christ. Agreed, provided that ‘love’ (a very confusing English word when used generally) is the equivalent of charity, generosity, beneficence, kindness and not ‘passionate sentiment’ as it typically means in English common use today.

    God is absolutely free and omnipotent. God is God. YES!

    the Act of salvation is God's actualization of his absolute freedom and omnipotence. YES!

    Is this theology scriptural? Yes. It's simple, pure, logical. YES IT IS, AGREED!

    the application in theology of the methods and techniques of rational speculative philosophy will inevitably lead to the denial of some of the tenets of faith or to the "theology of paradox"
    This is where we’re going to need to agree to disagree and retain hope in God that the difference between us on this will not impact reasonable discussion of the many issues of gospel theology we interact with on this forum. I do not subscribe to rational speculative philosophy (or any humanistic philosophy, for that matter). Philosophy was my worst hated subject in Theology in college/seminary and I only study it to try and understand what all the ancient and more recent non-Christian philosophers had to say and how to answer their errors to someone hung up on particular philosophical mentors. The ‘law of contradiction/non contradiction’ is a humanistic invention, although I have conceded that part of this applies to scriptural revelation from the standpoint of affirming that the assertions of scripture when considered as a whole are consistent and are not paradoxical/contradictory. Of course, as I stated earlier, the Christ-haters will always use the perceived contrasting rhetoric of the Bible to condemn it—even if this is nothing but constructing a very ugly and offensive ‘straw man’.

    On to my passion, affirming the true Gospel without human distortion (to the extent that the Lord gifts me for doing so) and exposing the errors in the history of dogma (contrasted with the truth) that compromise the gospel and muddy it up.

    If you wish to post a last word on this subject I will leave it as it stands just I have done in the thread on philosophy.

    Eternal Grace and Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ, Bro. Bob
    Last edited by Bob Higby; 02-06-19 at 02:45 PM. Reason: correction of errors in entry

  33. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (02-06-19), Greg (02-07-19), Pam (02-06-19), Razor (02-06-19)

  34. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    27
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Thank you Bro. Vadim for reminding me of the importance of words and how we use them in expressing our thoughts.

    Thank you Bro. Bob for providing an occasion for the reminder.

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Razor For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (02-06-19), Greg (02-07-19)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •